Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ll explain the context for my initial comment in this subthread. The comment I replied to was then downvoted and at the bottom of the thread. That’s why I did the whataboutism. I understand if you think it’s tedious to bring up America’s war efforts on tangentially related topics. There’s a time and place for everything. I used a more subtle hint in my first comment on this submission[1] while also addressing Stoic…
Is deflating/shutting-down always such a bad thing? Conversely: are all positions worthy of protracted, nuanced debate? I think not. And in particular, I find the the position that "hypocrisy, or rather weakly supported insinuations of hypocrisy, in regard to a certain evil is a vastly more vital and pressing topic than the actual evil happening on the ground itself" (to sum up these discussions in a nutshell) to be…
I can’t keep up with your trains of interpretation.
Whatever the actual evil happening on the ground is, it can’t be about the submission since that’s just about lounging in a lecture hall and talking about philosophy. So I’m at a loss as regards the thing we’re being distracted from.
> God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, such as debates and counter-debates about whataboutism on HN.
God, grant me the strength to accept the things I cannot change, such as people responding to me on a topic that I myself started.
Doesn’t sound as reasonable in that formulation.